New Ukrainian BMP. The BMP-64.

[Kunal Biswas]

Please understand that one does not make such an expensive machine merely for Counter Insurgency.
That (COIN) is only a side business of the military.
If one has to dismount, which they will also have to do in real combat, why prevent them from being effective?
I have not understood the logic or have I missed something?

Damian,
To desist from the humbug that having portholes weaken the structure!
That way every joint weakens the structure, including the doors!

Sir, Even in Open ground a ATGM launch from 2kms away wont help the man inside, the best thing is to armored it so it can endure and take the men, Supplies or the fire support to the objective ..

Sir,
The door are a weak point but in a BMP they are fuel tanks..

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Kunal,

They carry fit soldiers and four is not less. Four infantry soldiers in front of a squad of four soldiers can be very deadly. When it comes to motivated soldiers, numbers matter less.. Those six men inside Maekava is better than a stick of Indian Mechanised Infantry... Have no doubt on that.

I have mentioned this in previous post, But what if a APC based on Merkava with a RCWS of 50cal or 30mm cannon..

The Israelis converted older generation tanks into APC.
Namer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Nagmachon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Puma armored engineering vehicle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Nakpadon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here you can see there work..

 

[Ray]

Wonder how many photos I will need to upload to show that Merkava is not designed and capable to carry infantry while being still combat capable. You want to put there dismounts, ok but then You are left with only 5 to 10 rounds for main gun... yeah You have a tank and want to convert it in to APC with machine guns and tank gun without ammunition. Briliant!

If you had done your research before being cocky, you would have realised what would be the effective round reduction.

I am yet to hear from you with some good military reason as to why porthole were 'deleted' and how it made no difference to the Mechanised Infantry tactical employment. I want to know this to update my rusty knowledge!

 

[Ray]

Sir, Even in Open ground a ATGM launch from 2kms away wont help the man inside, the best thing is to armored it so it can endure and take the men, Supplies or the fire support to the objective ..

Sir,
The door are a weak point but in a BMP they are fuel tanks..

That is not the issue.

The issue is fighting through the objective mounted.

What about HHMTs? They are very small objects and are used as staybehinds for armoured advance!.

One can have Fort Knox on wheels!

All I want to know is the employment for which it is designed.

If only a Battle Taxi, it is a very expensive toy!

I don't want to be disrespectful or doubt anyone, it is just that I have always been a person who wants to know the whys and whereofs of issue so that it appeals to the logic rather than accepting whatever is dished out as the Gospel Truth!

 

[Damian]

If you had done your research before being cocky, you would have realised what would be the effective round reduction.

Yeah right, maybe first read some book about Merkava instead. Merkava can carry approx ~50 rounds (48 in Mk4 variant) so if we reduce it by 45 rounds in Merkava Mk4 how many rounds for main gun You will be left with? Where is logic behind doing so? Israeli soldiers seems to also not seen logic behind this this is why Merkava is used as a tank and for infantry transports there are Achzarit and Namer HAPC's.

I am yet to hear from you with some good military reason as to why porthole were 'deleted' and how it made no difference to the Mechanised Infantry tactical employment. I want to know this to update my rusty knowledge!

Read carefully my posts. I said, because armor improvements were needed, to improve protection ports needed to be deleted, firing ports were useless anyway so nobody cried, and in fact deletion of firing ports allowed to reconfigure M2 Bradley troops compartment in to more comfortable configuration, allowing for faster infantry dismounting.

 

[Bhadra]

There is no end to Armour illogicity... including the Mechanised ones..

They have never proved to assets and battle winners in small wars...

Diman and Kunal can prove it otherwise rather than talking of cracks and holes.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

That is not the issue.

The issue is fighting through the objective mounted.

What about HHMTs? They are very small objects and are used as staybehinds for armoured advance!.

One can have Fort Knox on wheels!

All I want to know is the employment for which it is designed.

If only a Battle Taxi, it is a very expensive toy!

Sir, as i have said, Its a battle taxi, Its a mobile fire-support unit, the troops are used when dismounted, the vehicle fire on move..

It is deigned to carry troop under fire, Also it can fire at the direction of enemy fire also it can provide fire support when dismount troops..

 

[Damian]

There is no end to Armour illogicity... including the Mechanised ones..

What?!

They have never proved to assets and battle winners in small wars...

Yeah right, and how You would retake for example Fallujah from insurgents hands? In lightly armored wheeled APC's?

And in reality Americans used heavy armor-mechanized forces, hah USMC not only send there it's own armor assets but even asked US Army to provide support with it's heavy armor.

Of course there are people on this planet that would be very happy to die in lightly armored thin can... preferbly on wheels.

 

[Ray]

Yeah right, maybe first read some book about Merkava instead. Merkava can carry approx ~50 rounds (48 in Mk4 variant) so if we reduce it by 45 rounds in Merkava Mk4 how many rounds for main gun You will be left with? Where is logic behind doing so? Israeli soldiers seems to also not seen logic behind this this is why Merkava is used as a tank and for infantry transports there are Achzarit and Namer HAPC's.



Read carefully my posts. I said, because armor improvements were needed, to improve protection ports needed to be deleted, firing ports were useless anyway so nobody cried, and in fact deletion of firing ports allowed to reconfigure M2 Bradley troops compartment in to more comfortable configuration, allowing for faster infantry dismounting.

Have you any military experience?

If you have had then do tanks fight isolated?

What is the minimum tank formation that can be effective?

And when is Infantry to be carried?

If this is not acceptable, then one wonders how a highly armoured ICV is only to be used as a Battle Taxi!

If money is on no concern, why not have a Merkava doing the same job of a Battle Taxi with greater firepower and better protection?

 

[Bhadra]

Today, world needs to generate, control and manage small wars. Tanks / ICVs have a limited roles to play in it. The Major part is played by the SF and Infantry, the rouges, trouble makers and street thugs.
Today's Armies need street fighter vehicles and not bottled up ICVs.
The street fighting needs to done economically and not foolishly.

Where is the role of bottled up ICV in this ?

 

[Damian]

Have you any military experience?

Do I really need to have one? Being in military do not prove anything, I heard storys from people that in training seargants were talking such stupidity like callink 9M14 ATGM modern and capable to destroy modern tanks with front armor hits...

If you have had then do tanks fight isolated?

Of course not, this is why there are vehicles designed to carry infantry, they are called APC's and IFV's.

What is the minimum tank formation that can be effective?

Depending on enemy forces and situation, sometimes effective is section (2 tanks), sometimes company (14 tanks), sometimes battalion (58 tanks).

And when is Infantry to be carried?

In Merkava? Preferbly never, for infantry carriage there are Achzarit and Namer.

Today, world needs to generate, control and manage small wars. Tanks / ICVs have a limited roles to play in it. The Major part is played by the SF and Infantry, the rouges, trouble makers and street thugs.
Today's Armies need street fighter vehicles and bottled up ICVs.
The street fighting needs to done economically and not foolishly.

Where is the role of bottled up ICV in this ?

Then make a phone call to US Army HQ and tell them they do not have slightest idea how to fight in wars and they should spend money not on tracked GCV but instead on more wheeled APC that they see as obsolete in a long term.

Did You even saw upgraded Strykers? They are not small, and not light vehicles, there was so urgent need to up-armor them that ERA package was developed and double V-hull, however this means that vehicle will lost some of it's tactical mobility. Tracked vehicle is just better.

 

[Bhadra]

Kunal,
I ask you very simple question.

Is Pakistani concept of their Infantry Taxi concept better or you ICV concept?

Who is able to generate more and effective combat power in given place, time and space ??

 

[Ray]

What?!



Yeah right, and how You would retake for example Fallujah from insurgents hands? In lightly armored wheeled APC's?

And in reality Americans used heavy armor-mechanized forces, hah USMC not only send there it's own armor assets but even asked US Army to provide support with it's heavy armor.

Of course there are people on this planet that would be very happy to die in lightly armored thin can... preferbly on wheels.

Rather lame an explanation. People dying in tin cans.

If that is the logic, then why have the infantry?

One does not take on insurgents in APC/ ICVs.

It is always better to be on foot and with greater flexibility and not as romping around like a lucrative target.

Even in that field, India has more experience and western powers have come to learn of the same, to include a General of the British Army before he took over the task in Bosnia!

 

[Bhadra]

Do I really need to have one? Being in military do not prove anything, I heard storys from people that in training seargants were talking such stupidity like callink 9M14 ATGM modern and capable to destroy modern tanks with front armor hits...



Of course not, this is why there are vehicles designed to carry infantry, they are called APC's and IFV's.



Depending on enemy forces and situation, sometimes effective is section (2 tanks), sometimes company (14 tanks), sometimes battalion (58 tanks).



In Merkava? Preferbly never, for infantry carriage there are Achzarit and Namer.



Then make a phone call to US Army HQ and tell them they do not have slightest idea how to fight in wars and they should spend money not on tracked GCV but instead on more wheeled APC that they see as obsolete in a long term.

Did You even saw upgraded Strykers? They are not small, and not light vehicles, there was so urgent need to up-armor them that ERA package was developed and double V-hull, however this means that vehicle will lost some of it's tactical mobility. Tracked vehicle is just better.

You have typical American ideas which always fail !

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Today, world needs to generate, control and manage small wars. Tanks / ICVs have a limited roles to play in it. The Major part is played by the SF and

Infantry, the rouges, trouble makers and street thugs.
Today's Armies need street fighter vehicles and bottled up ICVs.
The street fighting needs to done economically and not foolishly.

Where is the role of bottled up ICV in this ?

The current doctrine recommends clearing the built up area with dismounted troops prior to any armored vehicles entering. This Task Force proved that this is not a requirement and is not necessarily the best initial course of action. By moving armored vehicles along a pre determined route and destroying any enemy forces whether dug in, in buildings, or on roof tops with massive overwhelming fires from M1A1 tanks and M2A2 fighting vehicles, an entire line of communication can be opened up allowing access not only into the built up area but through it also. Once the line of communication is open, clearing operations with dismounted forces are much easier. A key to this is the overwhelming psychological effect the firepower of these weapon systems have on the enemy once the initial raid is conducted, almost all remaining enemy forces will withdraw from the initial shock. This initial shock of overwhelming firepower facilitates the attacks of dismounted infantrymen into the built up area.

post number #53

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Kunal,
I ask you very simple question.

Is Pakistani concept of their Infantry Taxi concept better or you ICV concept?

Who is able to generate more and effective combat power in given place, time and space ??

Pakistan is poorly equipped with M113 which are degraded than BMP-2 in terms of fire power, they are Pure battle taxi, Unlike BMP-2 is better ICV & APC..

But the matter is BMP-2 is not up-to today`s thread, that is what i am saying, And the reason BMP-2 deign ideology is different when made from today..

Today APC/IFV are much better protected..

 

[Bhadra]

Well post Number so and so is not the answer

 

[Ray]

Do I really need to have one? Being in military do not prove anything, I heard storys from people that in training seargants were talking such stupidity like callink 9M14 ATGM modern and capable to destroy modern tanks with front armor hits...



Of course not, this is why there are vehicles designed to carry infantry, they are called APC's and IFV's.



Depending on enemy forces and situation, sometimes effective is section (2 tanks), sometimes company (14 tanks), sometimes battalion (58 tanks).



In Merkava? Preferbly never, for infantry carriage there are Achzarit and Namer.



Then make a phone call to US Army HQ and tell them they do not have slightest idea how to fight in wars and they should spend money not on tracked GCV but instead on more wheeled APC that they see as obsolete in a long term.

Did You even saw upgraded Strykers? They are not small, and not light vehicles, there was so urgent need to up-armor them that ERA package was developed and double V-hull, however this means that vehicle will lost some of it's tactical mobility. Tracked vehicle is just better.

I will put it across to you quite bluntly.

The US is an Army with high technology, but they are not suitable to fight wars that are not conventional.

As far as how many tanks are to be used, that is a nice political answer which is neither here nor there! Indeed everything is based on the situation. I daresay two tanks will ever go into battle!

Have you read the controversy over the Styrkers? They are only for CI anyway.

And are you aware why they have come into being?

 

[Damian]

You have typical American ideas which always fail !

These are not American ideas, the same ideas have many other countries, look at Germans, they developed heavy armored tracked IFV. Russians also aim at the same goal.

Oh damn it, discussion with You is waste of time... "American ideas are bad" bla bla bla, yet they were the pioneers in safe ammunition storage in tanks, but yeah, probably these was also failed idea of designers in that nation... even if their solutions saved lifes of many tank crews.

The US is an Army with high technology, but they are not suitable to fight wars that are not conventional.

Yet they achieved victory over insurgents in Iraq, while Afghanistan would be tough nut to crack for any army.

Hae you read the controversy over the Styrkers? They are only for CI anyway.

And are you aware why they have come into being?

Hah but Stryker were never designed or intended for COIN operations, it was designed for classic battlefield, the heavy Stryker is insted designed for also COIN and it was designed exactly because heavier protection was needed.

 

[Ray]

Damiaqn,

You have still not explained the concept of using Mechanised Infantry without participating in battle and being merely made safe in the battlefield.

How are they being tactically employed?